DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 20 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species only differ in shape with no difference in form and function. This argument was found persuasive by the examiner and the species is hereby withdrawn.
The election of invention I including claims 1-16 is hereby acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05 November 2024 and 10 February 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent 2,328,247 issued to Alexander (Alexander).
Regarding claim 1, Alexander discloses an apparatus for use in a downhole process (See Figures, clearly illustrated), comprising: a body (15) configured to be removably received in a corresponding recess (11) of a perforation gun system (See Figures, clearly illustrated); a propellant chamber (25) defined in the body (See Figures, clearly illustrated); a projectile chamber (Element 24, contains element 34 as shown in Figure 1) defined in the body and positioned in the body above, and in communication with, the propellant chamber (See Figures, clearly illustrated); a barrel (24) defined in the body and positioned in the body above, and in communication with, the projectile chamber (See Figures, clearly illustrated); and a muzzle defined in the body and positioned in the body above, and in communication with, the barrel (24 at element 51, See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 2, Alexander further discloses wherein the body defines an ignition jack (37) that communicates with the projectile chamber (See Figures, clearly illustrate).
Regarding claim 3, Alexander further discloses wherein an inside diameter of the projectile chamber corresponds to a caliber of an associated projectile (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 4, Alexander further discloses wherein the body has a generally cylindrical configuration (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 5, Alexander further discloses wherein the body is made of a single piece of metal (See Figures, clearly illustrated and at least Page 2 Left Column Lines 46-58).
Regarding claim 6, Alexander further discloses wherein the propellant chamber comprises a nozzle that opens into the projectile chamber (Generally indicated by reference numerals 27, 29, and 30, See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 8, Alexander further discloses wherein an inside diameter of the barrel is smaller than an inside diameter of the propellant chamber (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 9, Alexander further discloses wherein structural integrity of the body is retained after a projectile has been fired from the apparatus (See entire disclosure, noted throughout “increased durability”).
Regarding claim 10, Alexander further discloses wherein the projectile chamber is configured to accommodate projectiles of different respective calibers (Understood, sabot projectiles can be used).
Regarding claim 11, Alexander further discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to accommodate a projectile and an ignition conductor that interfaces with the projectile from outside the body (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 12, Alexander further discloses wherein the body is configured to withstand internal pressures up to 100,000 psi when firing a projectile, while retaining its structural integrity during and after the firing (See entire disclosure, noted throughout “increased strength and durability”).
Regarding claim 13, Alexander further discloses wherein a length of the body is in a range of 1.5" to 4" (See at least Page 2 Left Column Lines 7-45).
Regarding claim 14, Alexander further discloses wherein after a projectile has been fired from the apparatus, the apparatus is reusable to fire another projectile (Understood).
Regarding claim 15, Alexander further discloses wherein the body defines a nozzle that is positioned between, and communicates with, the propellant chamber and the projectile chamber (Around elements 27-32, See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 16, Alexander further discloses wherein the nozzle has a first end (27) and a second end (30), and the first end has a larger diameter than a diameter of the second end (See Figures, clearly illustrated), and the first end is adjacent to the propellant chamber, and the second end is adjacent to the projectile chamber (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander in view of U.S. Patent 2,212,044 issued to Ridley (Ridley).
Regarding claim 7, Alexander does not disclose that the barrel is rifled.
Ridley, a related prior art reference, discloses wherein the barrel is rifled (“rifled bores 25”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Alexander with the noted teachings of Ridley. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to impart spin and increase accuracy of the projectiles as is known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 Form for a listing of applicable prior art references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641